I almost have to laugh about some of the replies. When I look through the APUG Gallery, and see Fuji Crystal Raster Prints, who is checking to make sure those were enlarger prints rather than machine prints? Furthermore, when I see images someone made by rephotographing images from Vogue magazine, Then the distinction of acceptable really blurs; no matter how someone does it, or what methods, if you photograph a photograph from someone else, you are violating copyright laws . . . yet somehow those images are there in the APUG Gallery, and being sold. Now maybe that particular individual got permission from the original photographer in Vogue to copy and alter those images, but then who is checking to make sure that is the true situation?
Anyway, thanks for the words of encouragement about Polaroid works. These are completely hand done, and it is nice to see they are appreciated by others. I have an exhibit starting this weekend in which most of the images I will be showing are Polaroid manipulations. I will also have traditional B/W prints, or Silver Prints as some people might call them.
Okay, so Sean is working on a separate site. I hope it is something like CPUG: Colour Photographers User Group. Hopefully film biased, and accepting of prints to photographic paper, whether done by enlarger or by the lab. That way colour film users not making Cibachromes can just walk away from APUG and leave it to those who are able to be more traditional. Might also be a good site for people who cannot get access to a darkroom, or lack the ability to set up one where they live.
Honesty in imaging is something I mentioned in regards to Dan Burkholder. I do not consider what he does as dishonest. I think it is completely appropriate that he terms his prints as platinum or palladium prints. He is also quite open about how he makes his prints, and the various methods are lightly explained on his website. Anyone buying one of his prints should have no reason to be deceived. My point in mentioning him was to point out that non-traditional steps could be used at an intermediate stage to produce a very traditional looking end result. While something like his sea turtle in a church image does not seem like a possible true capture, it could have been done as a double exposure in camera, and on film . . . just not as easily. Not all of Dan's images are so obvious: at the workshop I attended, he showed us an image of a building in Scotland; the change done in post processing was to take an image of a sky with many clouds, and mask that into the previous building image; without someone seeing both originals, it would be tough to know the final platinum print was not a straight capture and straight print. The point of all this is that it could be easy to fool someone using such methods, if any person was intent on fooling the public; however, that would be dishonest.
Ciao!
Gordon
That is short for Sylvester Robbins. Thought I would throw that in there for the "Ashamed of you Name" thread. 
